Pages

Friday, August 30, 2013

During First
World War Ernest Hemingway has served as ambulance driver for Italian Army. From
this experience, Hemingway created a Frederic Henry—the main character of this
book—an American Lieutenant who serve in Ambulance corps of Italian Army during
First World War, just like him.

The story
begins when Frederic was serving on the Italian
Front, the battle between the armies of Austria and German against Italy,
between 1915 - 1918. His roommate introduced him to Catherine, a Scottish (or
English?) nurse served in the same war. One day a mortar shell fell in a ditch
where the ambulance drivers were having breakfast. Frederic wounded on his knee,
brought to a hospital, where Catherine also joined him, and they fell in love.
After their vacation in Milan, Catherine was pregnant, and the couple pretended
they were husband and wife (although they never really married). After recovering,
Frederic must return to the front. However when Italy was on retreat, Frederic was
captured, but managed to get away; and disgusting at the war, decided to desert.
Catherine accompanied him in desertion; they went to Switzerland, where she
would give birth to the baby.

To be
honest, I have expected more about war than the romance from this book. A
Farewell To Arms is said to be the bleakest book from Hemingway, maybe it is
so, but I don’t feel that way. Anyway, I can’t expect cheerfulness in a war
story, can I? However, what annoyed me most is how Frederic and Catherine took their
lives for granted. I think it’s not right to rely one’s life only on love; as
long as the couple loves each other, everything will be OK. Maybe Hemingway
wanted to show us how war makes us depressed and hopeless. After witnessing his
comrades died for nothing, it’s natural for Frederic to become skeptical. Still,
it didn’t give him rights to deprive life from others. After finding that he
loved Catherine, he should have married her and so, provided her and their
coming baby with a decent and respectable life.

*spoiler
alert* I don’t want to be a severe judge, but I believe that what we did in the
past—good or bad—would somehow come back to us, either now or in the future.
Seeing Frederic and Catherine, with how they only regarded life as a series of
enjoyable moments, I was not surprised with the tragedy they had in the end. It’s
clear that Frederic and Catherine were not ready to be parents from the
beginning—Frederic wasn’t even touched by his newborn baby(?). And approaching
the end, I knew that something terrible must have awaited me, because it’s impossible
to have such comforts without suffering something. And the title also speaks
about a farewell, doesn’t it? *spoiler end*

Apart from
the story, Hemingway’s writing is quite unique. This is the second time I read
a stream-of-consciousness novel, and I must say Hemingway’s is much better than
Woolf’s—which I have failed with. Maybe it is the stream-of-consciousness, or
maybe it’s the lack of moral depth, that made this book felt flat and sometimes
boring. After finishing it, I could only ask Hemingway: So, what did you want
to say to me? That war is cruel? That life is mortal? (I don’t know about
Hemingway, but both Frederic and Catherine here did not have any religion). In
short, I felt a hollowness or shallowness from this book, and the only
consolation I had is the beautiful way Hemingway wrote about nature, which I
also caught in The Old Man and the Sea (my only favorite from him so far).

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Leo Tolstoy
dedicated War and Peace—a historical fiction which he insisted for not being a
novel—to convey his ideas about history and war, which is different with what
historians at that time believed. Tolstoy crafted his ideas through the lives
of five aristocratic families during the French invasion of Russia by Napoleon
on the early 19th century. He took us to witness how humanity was
built in battle field as well as in soirees and parties Moscow and Petersburg.

The story
begins in 1805 when Russia—under the reign of Tsar Alexander I—is expecting war
with French. Then I began to know the proud
and resolute Prince Andrew (Andrei) Bolkonski, and his timid and religious
sister Princess Mary Bolkonskaya; the temperamental and impetuous Count Nicholas
(Nikolai) Rostov, and his impulsive, restless sister, the young countess Natalya
(Natasha) Rostova. There are also the very rich, absent-minded Count Pierre
(Peter) Bezukhov, and the poor but ambitious Boris Drubetskoy. Throughout the
book, their fates (together with so many other characters’) would be entangled
one another during the turbulence era of the war. While the war is progressing—Tolstoy
portrayed it very vividly as if he is reporting the battle live from the battle
field—so are the characters, developing along with their sorrows and happiness,
love and hatred.

My most
favorite character from the beginning is Prince Andrew. He’s a man who knows
what he is doing, and he’s always self-confident. *spoiler alert* Naturally, when
he is falling in love with Natasha, I began to hope that the relationship would
end up in a happy marriage. Well, I don’t quite like the impulsive Natasha, who
always thinks about herself, but I just want Andrew to be happy. So, you can
imagine how angry I was with Natasha when she decided to elope with Anatole.
Seriously, how could she ever think about it at all?? OK, I understand how she
must have felt, in her youth, to be separated with her fiancée for one year, to
be left idle in the confinement of home, war, and the engagement bond, without
anything to busy her restless mind. And she was still naïve when the sexy
Anatole used his irresistible charm to her. By the way, Helene and Anatole are
just the same: brainless, immoral, but charming. And people often shamefully
take only the charm side, but fail to see deeper than that. And they absurdly
think Helene is very clever when she is actually very stupid. Oh, people!

Sorry, back
to Natasha... :) I understand how she could be attracted to Anatole. But
deciding to elope with him, while she knows that it is disgraceful (or, does
she really realize it?), how could she agree with the idea? I can never understand. Tempting to do one
thing is normal, but deciding it after consideration? And like Princess Mary, I
was a bit hurt knowing that Natasha could fall in love with Pierre just a few
weeks after Andrew’s death. Did she really love Andrew, then? Not as deep as
how Andrew loved her, I think… *spoiler end*

Still about
Andrew, I like it most when he is philosophizing with Pierre—who becomes his
best friend. Their debates are always deep in meaning, and from them I learned
a lot about life and war. I believe Andrew represents Tolstoy’s own way of
seeing life and war (especially war). In one of his deep conversations with Pierre Tolstoy points out that what really moves a war into its nature is
not the genius strategies or the great commanders, but the army who really
involve in the battle. In it, Tolstoy wants to say that war is actually a
movement of humanity (until now I still don’t know what the ‘peace’ in War and
Peace stands for, do you?).

There is a
gap between people who (think they) control the battle course, and people who
fight in the battle. The minority of generals, commanders, etc. give commands
but do not involve in the battle; while the majority of the army, who must execute
the commands, really fight the battle. When historians write about a particular
battle, they would only read the written plans, strategies, reports from the
generals and commanders, and from them draw a conclusion that this general or
that commander is genius because he can create such tactics. However, in
reality, the commands are rarely be executed by the army in the battle field.
Just imagine, when you are in a battle, between life and death, would you
really think about your boss or even your nation? Of course not, you would
first think of your own life, of surviving. It’s natural, because human’s instinct
is to survive.

In the chaos
of a battle, generals and commanders act and give instructions based on
reports, while the army act based on their instinct. When one report being
delivered to the commander, it would be considered, discussed, decided,
replied, then sent back to the army. But meanwhile, the course of the battle
might have changed completely, and so the instruction is not up to date
anymore. In short, it is very difficult to pick one hero (or culprit) of a
success or a failure in war, because there are so many circumstances that
intervene the course of a war. In the end, we must realize that war is moved my
humanity, not by a genius mind.

The same
could be applied to any other histories. There are no coincident or magnanimity
in wars or other events, but only circumstances and humanity. That’s what
Tolstoy had wanted to speak through this book. Unfortunately, he took pains to
explain it in the second epilogue of twelve chapters! That makes the ending
feels so anti-climax, whereas he actually had slipped this philosophy of war
and history throughout the story. It goes well because, while he is explaining
his opinion, the readers are provided with the example in the story. So,
without any further essay, we have understood what he conveys very well.
Closing it on the first epilogue would be much better than stretching the
epilogue twelve more chapters full of repeating frowning-explanations!

For all that,
I attached four and a half stars for
War and Peace. I love Tolstoy writing and usage of so beautiful metaphors, but
I’m disappointed in the closing. For me closing passage or lines are what echoes
from the book long after I finish it. While I might have forgotten the opening,
the closing is what I bring back with me to reality.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Apparently,
War and Peace still doesn’t stop to amaze me till now. It seems that every
passage and every dialog is more important and more intense than the others.
Prince Andrew is my most favorite character. His insight and his dialog
(especially with Pierre) are always valuable. It seems that through Andrew,
Tolstoy communicates his own thoughts of war, as well as of life.

This passage
is taken from the night before one of the most important battles against
French. Pierre was conversing with Andrew, and he asked his friend’s opinion on
the tomorrow’s battle under the new appointed commander-in-chief. After having
listening to another general about strategy, plans and positioning, Pierre was
surprised to hear Andrew’s answer:

“Success never depends, and never will
depend, on position, or equipment, or even on numbers, and least of all on
position. (It’s) On the feeling that is in me and in him, and in each soldier.
(…) A battle is won by those who firmly resolve to win it! Why did we lose the
battle at Austerlitz? The French losses were almost equal to ours, but very
early we said to ourselves that we were losing the battle, and we did lose it.
And we said so because we had nothing to fight for there, we wanted to get away
from the battlefield as soon as we could. 'We've lost, so let us run,' and we
ran. If we had not said that till the evening, heaven knows what might not have
happened. But tomorrow we shan't say it! You talk about our position, the left
flank weak and the right flank too extended. That's all nonsense, there's
nothing of the kind.

But what awaits us tomorrow? A hundred
million most diverse chances which will be decided on the instant by the fact
that our men or theirs run or do not run, and that this man or that man is
killed, but all that is being done at present is only play. The fact is that
those men with whom you have ridden round the position not only do not help
matters, but hinder. They are only concerned with their own petty interests. To
them it is only a moment affording opportunities to undermine a rival and
obtain an extra cross or ribbon. For me tomorrow means this: a Russian army of
a hundred thousand and a French army of a hundred thousand have met to fight,
and the thing is that these two hundred thousand men will fight and the side
that fights more fiercely and spares itself least will win. And if you like I
will tell you that whatever happens and whatever muddles those at the top may
make, we shall win tomorrow's battle. Tomorrow, happen what may, we shall win!”

And this is
what Tolstoy believed too, and I feel that one of his reasons to write War and
Piece was to tell us what historians failed to do: to reveal what really
defined the course of a battle; it’s not the chief’s orders or plans, but the
spirit of the whole army. War might be inflicted by one or more ambitious
King(s), but in the end it is a movement of humanity.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Dear
#LRP-ers… we are already in the tenth month of our yearlong event: Let’s Read Plays. Here is a quick check-in.

First of
all, just to remind you, our theme this month is another comedy from the Bard. It’s been three month since we read any Shakespeare’s
comedy, it’s time to a bit silly wittiness again…:) And now…

Which comedy will you choose?

I will read
Twelfth Night

How was your progress until now? Have you
left behind several plays, or are you ahead of the schedule?

Although I
didn’t read always on schedule, I have, so far, read all the themes required. Until
September, I have read ten plays (I read two tragedies for the first month).

Do you think you’d be able to read the
whole themes by end of October?

I might not
be able to read Twelfth Night on time, but I’ll try to squeeze it before the
end of October. After that, two more plays, one of them is what I’ve been
waiting for: Hamlet. So, yes, I think I’d be able to read ALL the themes, and complete
thirteen plays for Let’s Read Plays. What about you? We still have two and a
half months to catch up!

And don’t
forget, this month’s prompt of our Play Monthly Meme by Listra is: Favorite Scene. Share your favorite
scene from the comedy you’re reading, or any comedy you’ve read during LRP,
remember, this is the last comedy we’d read for LRP! :)

And last but
not least, when you have post your LRP, please do not forget to add it to the
linky in the master post, as (pssstt!) there might be a surprise gift by Dessy sometime during these two and a half month!

Please remind me also if you have posted Character Thursday for Meme but I haven't put it in the linky here, as your posts will be entered in the giveaway at the
end of LRP.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

I am now
reading one of Leo Tolstoy’s masterpieces: War and Peace. And despite of the
uncomfortable-bulk-book and the tiny fonts, War and Peace turns out to be an
enjoyable story. Now I am asking myself, why have I been delaying in reading
this until now? Was I afraid that the book will be boring? Not at all! I’ve
been enjoying every bit since the beginning, and now am quite glad that I still
have 400 pages to go, hoho!

For Scene on
Three, I have picked a passage from page 110, it is when Russian troops get
their first chance to meet their enemy, the French army. Being ready in their
line, separated by some spaces to the enemy’s front line might be quite
exciting—or frightening? What are they really thinking of? Can you imagine?
Tolstoy can portray very vividly the anxiety and the feeling of the soldiers in
this passage. Enjoy!

“One step beyond that boundary line which
resembles the line dividing the living from the dead, lies uncertainty
suffering, and death. And what is there? Who is there?—there beyond that field,
that tree, that roof lit up by the sun? No one knows, but one wants to know.
You fear and yet long to cross that line, and know that sooner or later it must
be crossed and you will have to find out what is there, just as you will
inevitably have to learn what lies the other side of death. But you are strong,
healthy, cheerful, and excited, and are surrounded by other such
excitedly-animated and healthy men. So thinks, or at any rate feels, anyone who
comes in sight of the enemy, and that feeling gives a particular glamour and
glad keenness of impression of everything that takes place at such moments.”

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

For Let’s Read Plays – other author theme of July, I have picked Anton Chekhov.
Chekhov is actually more famous with his short stories; he is actually the
father of short story writing in Europe. I have once read one of his short
stories, and have caught his clear, sharp, and deep method of writing. And I
thought it would be interesting to see whether his play was written in the same
style. I picked The Cherry Orchard, in particular, as it is listed on my WEM
self project. I have worked on the Act summaries, as well as the stage
inquiries: the first and the second level.

The Cherry
Orchard tells the story within the Ranevskys’ household. The famous cherry
orchard itself located within the Ranevskys estate; and said to be one of the
most beautiful places on earth. It might be exaggerated—as a cherry orchard
should looks just as other cherry orchards—but it certainly kept the secrets
and history of the family for many generations, which creates a special bound
between the orchard and the residents; the cherry orchard looks beautiful
because it bears many memorable events of the past. And now the Ravenskys must
let their estate go, as it would be sold in an auction to pay their debts.

This play’s
main conflicts lay on the cherry orchard’s sale, as each of the characters’
future would be depended on the sale. There are people who detest the idea;
Lubov Andreyevna—the present owner—a widowed mother, who has been abroad for
five years before finally returns to Russia. Lubov cannot think of leaving, as
she would be like being cut off from her history by that. On the other hand,
Lopakhin—a businessman, son of the estate’s old slave but later on was raised
by the family—insists that the cherry orchard must be cut down, so that a villa
can be built on it. Trofimov—a family teacher—is pleased with the idea of moving
from the estate, and is excited to welcome the future together with Anya, Lubov’s
daughter. While for Varya—Lubov’s adopted daughter—it would be a total ruin, as
she would loose her job besides her home.

To read this
play as only portraying what it performs, would be very deceiving. At first,
you would think that the whole play is only the fuss around losing a family
estate and moving away. But if you read between the lines, you would find
Chekhov’s idea or critics on how Russians see the upcoming waves of change. At
the time Chekhov wrote this, modernism was entering Russia, and the old values
are struggling to survive (this play was first performed on 1904). Each character here stands for certain idea which
reflects the contrast between people who are with modernism versus people who keep
holding on the Old Russian values.

In the play,
you’d see many incoherent dialogs or scenes within the Acts which makes the
plot seems won’t go anywhere. Actually the first four Acts feels flat and
overstretched, you would be asking yourself, what does Chekhov wanted to say, really? Just keep reading, because
in Act Five Chekhov would change the gear, and the acceleration is suddenly
increasing towards a climax. And lo! The ending would be very surprising, if
not shocking. After the curtain has been down, you would sit still, struck, and
couldn’t believe that the play has ended, and that ‘that’ would be the end! And
then, you would reflect the whole play, of the pieces of incoherent dialogs and
scenes, and suddenly, every piece would makes sense, as if the play is a huge
puzzle game. By reflecting it, you would also see what Chekhov has wanted to
tell you beneath the flat story. And finally, you would see the genius brain of
the author who could present his ideas in this play!

Four and a
half stars for The Cherry Orchard, as although I sometimes feel uncomfortable
with the sudden changes in scenes or immediate incoherent interruption, the
language is beautiful, and I love Chekhov’s detailed description of the
background settings.

Friday, August 2, 2013

I was
struggling through this second part of The Divine Comedy: Purgatorio. Unlike
Inferno—with a vivid description of Hell and some recognized figures—Purgatorio
is more like an abstract image of divine actions. It is full of allegories
representing many acts and symbols from Bible, that the poem is often boring
and tedious.

After
leaving Hell/Inferno, Dante, still with his guide Virgil, enters the
Purgatorio. The setting of Purgatorio is of course different with Inferno.
Dante imagined purgatory as a mountain that has many levels. At the bottom is
Ante-Purgatory, then seven terraces where souls are being punished and purged.
The more the mount ascend, Dante gets more spiritual growth. The mountain top
is the Earthly Paradise, and after this one, Dante is purified from his sins
and deserves to enter the Paradise (the third part).

We already
know from Inferno that it was Beatrice who initiated this journey for Dante,
and she even chose Virgil—the Roman poet—to be his guide. Now in Purgatorio,
Beatrice shows herself in the middle of the journey, and even guides Dante at
certain point after Virgil leaves them, near their end of journey. Another poet
called Statius also accompanies Dante.

The poem
itself is of course still beautiful; and this is the only aspect that kept me
reading. So, if you just want to read a poem, this might be your choice. But,
if you want to get what Dante talks about, you can hardly depend on the poem
only. Fortunately, thanks to the digital era, there are many reading guides for
these kinds of complex classics works. I was lucky to have found this site
from which I learned a lot of things I would never thought about before. I
think Purgatorio is more like a theological study about the Church than a poem;
no wonder several people stuck on it although they can get through Inferno. Shortly,
Purgatorio is a great work of poem, but needs a huge determination to finish
it.

It’s by idea; the characters’ attachment with
their past, their fear of facing the reality, and their obsession to be
released from it that betrays their consciences.

What does each
character stand for?

Lubov stands for the conservatives who refuse
to move on from the past or from their history. They could not accept the idea
that the world is changing; they just do not want to change. The cherry orchard
symbolizes old Russia; Lubov represents Russian who like to hide in the comfort
of their past (old Russia) rather than facing the modernism.

Trofimov stands for the liberals who are
open-minded; who treat the old Russia as a history, and embrace the modern
Russia as brighter future; who can objectively see the weaknesses of the old
Russia and have the courage to welcome changes.

Lopakhin stands for people who want to
forget their sorrowful past and cut down his root completely from history, to
embrace the new wave of materialism. In the process, they might lose their
consciences, and fall into moral corruption.

“Even if you gave me
twenty thousand I should refuse. I‘m a free man. And everything that all you
people, rich and poor, value so highly and so dearly hasn’t the least influence
over me; it’s like a flock of down in the wind.”

“Yes, I am a decayed
gentleman, and I’m proud of it!”

Does the playwright
lead you into a satisfying resolution?

I think so. Each
of the characters has different destination to reach, and each symbolizes the
idea they represent, and the difference is just emphasizing the irony. But the
most touching is the resolution of Fiers. I think Chekhov wanted to criticize
how forgetful people could be in the turbulence of changes, or maybe he wanted
to emphasize that the past/old Russia has no choices other than being locked up
and dying… ?

What is the play’s
theme?

In a way, it’s
Modernism vs Old Russia. Chekhov criticized people who were still clutching at
their satisfying pasts, and refused to think positively about the inevitable modernism.
Besides that, this play also tells of how people tend to remember and forget.
There are people who love to stick memories of the past to their heart, and try
to forget the present (Lubov), and there are people like Trofimov who are
ignorant of the past, because what’s most important is the future. Lopakhin
actually shares Trofimov’s idea, but with different cause. Trofimov wants to
forget the past because of his ideology, while Lopakhin because of bitterness. Whatever you choose, the past would soon be dead, and replaced by the
modern. The change is inevitable, just like Fiers’ tragic ending.